Attorneys of “Padva & Partners” have won at the Presidium of the Higher Arbitrazh Court of Russia on the claim of a Lithuanian bank to a Russian investment company

Attorneys of “Padva & Partners” Sergey Koronets and Nikita Chernenilov have won at the Presidium of the Higher Arbitrazh Court of Russia on a claim seeking to invalidate a set-off transaction for USD 27m, filed by a Lithuanian bank to a Russian investment company. Decisions of lower courts against the Law Office client have been reversed and the case returned for a new hearing.

It was previously known that the claim of the Lithuanian bank which is in the process of bankruptcy seeking to “invalidate a transaction for the set-off of homogeneous counterclaims performed by the company under an application”, was heard initially by the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow. The court denied the claim. The judgement was upheld by the Ninth Arbitrazh Appeals Court of the Moscow District.

“The Presidium of the Higher Arbitrazh Court of Russia ruled in favour of the claimant – to reverse the decisions of all lower courts and return the case for a new hearing», - said attorney Nikita Chernenilov.

He added that the proceedings, therefore, would continue in the coming year. Nikita Chernenilov explained that “the Presidium of the Higher Arbitrazh Court of Russia found that courts had incorrectly applied the rules of substantive and procedural law, which resulted in a breach of uniformity in the construction and application of laws by arbitrazh courts». “This case is interesting also because it was reviewed by the Presidium of the Higher Arbitrazh Court of Russia prior to the review of amendments to the Constitution on uniting the Supreme Courts “, commented attorney Sergey Koronets. (see. Law Office attorneys on uniting the Supreme Courts)

“Resolution of this civil case is made more difficult because the relationship in question is partially governed by Russian law and partially by Lithuanian law”, - he said.

“Unfortunately, the general rules of the Civil Code did not exclude such dispute on law applicable to a set-off as a unilateral transaction. Now the special rules of article 1217.2 of the Civil Code which took effect this 1 November, have settled this specific case “, - added S. Koronets.

Solving the dispute, the appellate court agreed with the arguments of the Bureau’s attorney Anna Ivanova that the only prosecutor and other authorized bodies in according with the Federal law have the right to sue on the demolition of unauthorized construction, in particular the Department of Cultural Heritage, if the construction works are implemented on a cultural heritage or its territory. The Court also noted that, as a result of the construction work does not create a new property, the work can not be considered unauthorized construction.